rio VS cxx

Also, not to be too bad about a reputation fallacy, but I found the author to be flippant and disrespectful when good-faith unsoundness was pointed out in his crates: https://github.com/spacejam/rio/issues/30

In my previous post on linear types I spent quite a bit of time motivating linear types. For example the ergonomic rio io_uring library could be made sound if it could guarantee destructors are run. Or performing FFI with async C++ could be made more efficient if it could rely directly on destructors rather than having to involve an intermediate runtime for each call.

It's like cargo should have a way to mark a dependency as unsafe. That way, you could have a safe mmap crate as an unsafe dependency. Or something like rio which is deliberately unsound (but is fine if you abide by its rules through the entirety of the program)

for completeness there is also rio, but:

rio still has known soundness issues– its Completion futures block the thread when dropped (!!!), and can allow for use-after-free bugs if leaked. See https://github.com/spacejam/rio/issues/30 for details.

Here are some posts about the design. https://without.boats/blog/io-uring/ https://github.com/spacejam/rio/issues/30 https://github.com/axboe/liburing/issues/109

The author of sled[1], an embedded database in Rust which has a number of promising features, has also written parts of rio[2], an underlying pure Rust io_uring library, which is intended to become the core write path for sled. rio has support for files but also has a demo for TCP (on Linux 5.5 and later) and O_DIRECT.

I tested rio recently as I had a Brilliant but Bad Idea™ involving file access and was pleasantly surprised by the API, as I have been with sled's.

I'm excited for the experimentation in the Rust ecosystem and for such low level crates to handle the complex io_uring tasks (relatively) safely!

[1]: https://github.com/spacejam/sled

[2]: https://github.com/spacejam/rio

There are cxx and autocxx, what else do you propose to do?

I would like to see a comparison of how this compares to Rust. In terms of interoperability it has Cxx (https://cxx.rs) to offer safe bindings to C++ but also has great support for Android, Linux and many other systems. You don't even need to hack together Windows bindings (as explained in the blog post) because Microsoft offers official bindings (https://crates.io/crates/windows). I'm not sure if I'd call it a superpower if any potential interoperability has to be written to be used (compared to it already being available). Or rather, in comparison to what is interoperability a Swift superpower? Certainly not C++ or C which can be used in a far wider set of targets.

We selected Qt as a cross-platform solution. The C++/Rust interface is the clunkiest and ugliest part of the application, and rather complex because some state is shared between several windows in the GUI and several threads in the backend, and any component might modify that state at any time, and updates have to be transmitted to the other components without introducing inconsistencies. Using cxx [1] helped a little, though.

The project began in 2020, and I'm not sure what I'd choose as a GUI framework today – definitely not Qt Widgets, though.

[1] https://cxx.rs/

If the build process for the C library isn't too involved I recommend using cxx bridge (https://cxx.rs/) and letting cargo handle the build and linking. cxx basically allows you to describe the bidirectional interface (although it sounds like you only need 1 direction, which is fine too) in Rust code and it provides a "good enough" API for compiling C code inside the build.rs file.

The tooling for the first kind -- calling Rust from another language -- is a bit less developed, and tends to rely on code generation that doesn't necessarily produce a natural C API. cbindgen, uniffi, cxx, and Diplomat all take this course.

I would like to utilize OMPL's functionality in Rust code, so I want to call into OMPL C++ code somehow in Rust. I've seen two (non-mutually-exclusive) options so far: - rust-cpp, which allows you to write C++ code in Rust within the cpp!() macro. - cxx, which allows you to define both sides of the FFI boundary manually (as opposed to bindgen's automatic generation).

I'm not sure how to do this in cxx; issues like https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx/issues/447 suggest that this isn't settled yet?

I use non-vendored dependencies for the Buck build in https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx.

There's also the cpp and cxx crates for doing C++/Rust interop, but they probably aren't appropriate to use in all cases. The C ABI is definitely the safest way to go unless you're really trying to marry Rust and C++ code bases, not just writing library bindings.

There's also cxx (can't vouch for it personally but it claims to make things a lot easier) https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx